And in all honestly, if I were in your position I would be tossing up the same decision. I think jan-march is a grey area. I (& I think other teachers) are referring more to kids who dont turn 5 until may, june, july & we are pushed into having. I've taught kids in prep who werent 5 until sept, oct. It's too young. Feb,I say do what feels right for you. Sorry if my comments made you feel bad, I'm not thinking of a february baby when I make them.

This is where I try and distance myself from some of the comments about sending kids early. My DD is 2 March, which I agree is very different from a 2 July child.

It is a shame that parents feel they need school as a child minder, which is another reason why I feel the age rules need to change.

I'm just very glad my DD had been assessed as ready, if not I'd have to wait til 2018 and my mental health just couldn't deal with that.

And in all honestly, if I were in your position I would be tossing up the same decision. I think jan-march is a grey area. I (& I think other teachers) are referring more to kids who dont turn 5 until may, june, july & we are pushed into having. I've taught kids in prep who werent 5 until sept, oct. It's too young. Feb,I say do what feels right for you. Sorry if my comments made you feel bad, I'm not thinking of a february baby when I make them.

Thanks.
That's why it's so annoying that different states have different cut off's and some call it prep, others preschool / kinder?? I get confused!

I think it would be good to acknowledge how expensive childcare is. It's a genuine issue that affects families, sometimes even breaking them. As a full time working parent of 2 kids in daycare, for 1/3 of the year (when the rebate runs out) it costs over $2000 per fortnight out of pocket for childcare. Yes that's right. Not saying it's making your other points any less valid, just that a little more understanding would be great. Parents don't try to disrespect teachers and **** them off. They are just trying to survive.

I've had 3 kids in childcare at one stage two days week for about 18 months. My eldest could've gone to school so I could've only had 2 children at daycare plus I wouldn't have needed before and after school care because I was on mat leave and would've been picking her up but I didn't want to send her because she wasn't ready. My son could've started school last year and I could've saved thousands but that wasn't the right reason to send him to school. I understand Childcare is expensive. My youngest is still in childcare but surely that cost has already been in the budget and the budget can stretch for only one more year for the benefit of your child when science tells us that children's brains aren't ready for formal learning/schooling until around age 6 and vast majority of early childhood, education experts and 88% of the world's education systems agree that 4 is way too young to start school.

Yes, let's push 4 year olds into full-time school, to appease the parents who want to use education as a cheap form of child care. Then we lower the curriculum standards, and bring all of our teaching down to a 4 year old level, so that education really IS about cheap babysitting instead of about educating children. Of course, if we lower the curriculum standards for 4 year olds in prep, we have to lower them for 5 year olds in grade 1. And 6 year olds in grade 2, who are really at the age where they should be beginning formal schooling. And we lower our curriculum standards all across the grades, and then wonder why Australia has lower curriculum standards and educational outcomes than the countries who start their kids in school at 6-7years old, rather than 4-5 year olds.

Sorry, I know I'm 'firey' about this topic. I am an educator, not a babysitter, so when people start talking about wanting longer school hours to fit in with their work place, or wanting to lower the school starting age so that 4.5 year olds can be pushed into formal education before they're ready, I find it really annoying. Notice that pretty much every teacher in this thread agrees on this? That probably says something.

Mate, you're getting firey at the wrong person. None of what you said is addressing anything I said in my post. I'm saying that perhaps we need to think MORE about the educational needs of 4-6 year olds, without the strict formal structure of primary school. I'm more thinking along the line of- if 4-6 year olds aren't ready for the rigours of primary school, why are we sending them then? Why can't we have some form of infant's school/extended kindergarten/preschool that stretches kids academically that age a little more than they are currently, without feeling like we have to force them into formal schooling.

Mate, you're getting firey at the wrong person. None of what you said is addressing anything I said in my post. I'm saying that perhaps we need to think MORE about the educational needs of 4-6 year olds, without the strict formal structure of primary school. I'm more thinking along the line of- if 4-6 year olds aren't ready for the rigours of primary school, why are we sending them then? Why can't we have some form of infant's school/extended kindergarten/preschool that stretches kids academically that age a little more than they are currently, without feeling like we have to force them into formal schooling.

I've had 3 kids in childcare at one stage two days week for about 18 months. My eldest could've gone to school so I could've only had 2 children at daycare plus I wouldn't have needed before and after school care because I was on mat leave and would've been picking her up but I didn't want to send her because she wasn't ready. My son could've started school last year and I could've saved thousands but that wasn't the right reason to send him to school. I understand Childcare is expensive. My youngest is still in childcare but surely that cost has already been in the budget and the budget can stretch for only one more year for the benefit of your child when science tells us that children's brains aren't ready for formal learning/schooling until around age 6 and vast majority of early childhood, education experts and 88% of the world's education systems agree that 4 is way too young to start school.

At 2 x days per week I assume the rebate lasted the whole year.

Try 2-3 kids, full time ($2,000+ per fortnight out of pocket just for 2 once the rebate runs out) and you probably wouldn't expect people to stretch for just another year.

I don't agree that the evidence points to kids shouldn't start school until 6. And I don't agree that 88% of the worlds educations agree that a 4 year 11 month old child isn't ready to start school. 4 year 0 month maybe but seriously I don't know anyone who would consider starting their brand new 4 year old. Kids start preschool (more play based) at 4 or 5 and no one bats an eyelid at that. What the evidence shows is that our current kindy/prep programs may not be the perfect format for the targeted age group (5-6). 5 year olds shouldn't sit in front of PowerPoint presentations for 5 x hours straight type thing - common sense. Mould the program to fit the child if the program isn't working, don't mould the child to fit the fashion trend to send kids later.

On the daycare issue...is it really that different to having three in after school care every day and vacation care every school holidays? Plus all the school excursions etc x 3 kids. I know I have forked out around $800 in the last month for school excursions for my kids...there is no rebate to help cover that cost. There is always excursions and fundraisers and special 'whole school sports', gala days, etc etc. My kids go to public schools, too. It's never ending when you have more than 1 or 2 kids. My kids weren't in daycare full time, but I'm not convinced that school is the answer to saving the budget either.

On the daycare issue...is it really that different to having three in after school care every day and vacation care every school holidays? Plus all the school excursions etc x 3 kids. I know I have forked out around $800 in the last month for school excursions for my kids...there is no rebate to help cover that cost. There is always excursions and fundraisers and special 'whole school sports', gala days, etc etc. My kids go to public schools, too. It's never ending when you have more than 1 or 2 kids. My kids weren't in daycare full time, but I'm not convinced that school is the answer to saving the budget either.

Yes it is different. Big difference when you don't have to pay for 5 hours each day for a big chunk of the year. For starters rebate doesn't run out when you're not using it all day every day. Excursions suck however when kids are young you also have expenses (sport, swimming etc).
There are additional expenses at all ages.

I agree school isn't the answer for saving the budget. However I don't think we should be looking at it like that for 4 nearly 5 year olds and brand new 5 year olds. Those age groups have been sent to school since day dot. Sending kids at 6 is a relatively recent trend. Parents sending nearly 5 year olds/new 5 year olds to school aren't doing so to save money they are doing so because that's what's always been done and the guidelines allow it. If the programming is no longer appropriate for that age group that's on the education departments, not the parents.

Mould the program to fit the child if the program isn't working, don't mould the child to fit the fashion trend to send kids later.

This is what WA have done, hence why a parent in WA will send their child who turns 5 on 29th June to full time school that year without batting an eyelid. In fact, up until about 10 years ago when they used to run a Jan-Dec intake year (now to Jul-Jun) kids were 6 months younger than that.

I didn't 'get' the trend in Victoria to send Jan-April birthdays the year later until I saw first hand how different first yearvof school is here (through teacher eyes, not through my own childhood experience). Many teachers here who have read about/seen how it is done in WA praise their way of starting school.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stretched For This Useful Post:

Kinder program in childcare if funding isn't approved?

Originally Posted by FearlessLeader

Mate, you're getting firey at the wrong person. None of what you said is addressing anything I said in my post. I'm saying that perhaps we need to think MORE about the educational needs of 4-6 year olds, without the strict formal structure of primary school. I'm more thinking along the line of- if 4-6 year olds aren't ready for the rigours of primary school, why are we sending them then? Why can't we have some form of infant's school/extended kindergarten/preschool that stretches kids academically that age a little more than they are currently, without feeling like we have to force them into formal schooling.